It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. Durbin: Obama Will 'Borrow the Power' to Solve Immigration

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

I agree that this information is very handy an I have learned a bit more from your post. But unfortunately it does not touch on the matter at hand. The criteria needed to run for office has nothing to do with the initial act of immigrating to the US.

They have to immigrate here first before your information applies. This is what the Citizenship clause says:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


This was put in place so that the federal government could protect freed slaves from states that wanted to keep them oppressed.

What exactly does this have to do with immigration...other than federal protection and defining who can or cannot run for office?


Question - You do know US citizens hold dual citizenship right?

When the Us Constitution was ratified it did not apply to the states. It only applied to the Federal government and those within the federal system. It had to be applied to the states via the courts and even today there is still one amendment that has never been applied to the states.

An individual residing in the state of California is a resident/citizen of that state. An individual residing in the state of New York is a resident/citizen of that state. Due Process allows either state to charge individuals from either state if they violate the laws in that state. Those charged have legal recourse by challenging extradition. Those individuals can hold their respective state governments accountable and the states receive their authority from their citizens to act on their behalf in state matters.

When an individual leaves the United States and travels the globe, they are Citizens of the United States of America. As such the Federal government represents them in issues that occur in a foreign nation.

The concept of separate sovereign is important as it relates directly to the citizenship quote you made. In this case it had to be clear which constitution applied where and when and to whom. It had to define citizenship domestically to create legitimacy for the State Governments.

If they did not do this you would have 50 states and 300 million plus "federal citizens". If they are all federal where do the states derive their power to govern? The ability and authority to govern is granted by their citizens.

Why can non natural citizens hold the office of Governor?

Because in those areas the State Constitution is used and most states allow for non natural born citizen to hold that office. The citizenship requirement to hold federal office is the US Constitution, and as I already argued, requires an individual to be a natural born citizen.

If citizenship origins were never considered then there would have been no reason to specifically include that language in the Constitution. Having a President who can have their citizenship removed runs counter to what the founders intended.

As an example if Obama was not a natural born US citizen then his actions on bypassing Congress could easily be resolved by simply challenging his actions in federal court, arguing his actions violated the law and Constitution, and as such should have his citizenship revoked and deported.

Again there would have been no need to spell out citizenship or create a requirement of it to hold high office.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

So let's see, you want to execute men women and children of a certain race if they are caught here illegally and that's not genocide?

See, i have a different solution, instead of sending them back home, why not drop them of into countries we don't like? I.E. Iran, N. Korea, China.

better than your plan of genocide, better than the revolving door at the border.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   


unlike you? i see plenty of rhetoric from you too...like, for instance, your unwillingness to say "you(daedalus) are a biased, ignorant, racist asshole"...we both know you're talking about me, without actually talking about me...so let's quit pussyfooting, ok?

a reply to: Daedalus
My Friend, we all know who the poster was referring too.
But never fear, all of your replies were not only will thought-out and honest but correct where as his / her's are nothing more than a way to needle you and get under your skin because nothing he / she has is worth a Damn.

All My respect friend, I know it's hard to stand by your beliefs.

Just try to figure how I did it, I came from growing up Hating and Fearing America and every American, I was taught, America had plans to invade my country, kill my father, eat my mother and make be a whore.
I'm a Naturalized American Citizen now and have been married to a Big Awful Ugly American every sense,,, we'll I can't really go into that.
But, I Love America and I HATE what Obama and his Minion's are doing to it.

Obama has Not Create any Jobs For American's Like He Promised, But He Has For illegals!!!!

edit on 2-7-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well until 1987 a state had the ability to refuse extradition was from a court case that involved a man named Willis Lago who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He had fled to Ohio, where the governor, William Dennison, refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. In this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus to do so. In 1987 the supreme court reversed this ruling and now the federal courts now control extradition.So the states no longer have this right and there is only US citizenship when it comes to extradition.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
So let's see, you want to execute men women and children of a certain race if they are caught here illegally and that's not genocide?


i don't really care WHERE they're coming from...mexico, central or south america, canada, the middle east, germany, the UK, europe, etc...an illegal alien is an illegal alien.....stop trying to make this into a "racist" thing....or is that the extent of your debate skills now?



See, i have a different solution, instead of sending them back home, why not drop them of into countries we don't like? I.E. Iran, N. Korea, China.


no, that is actually the STUPIDEST suggestion i've heard, for this particular issue..

what right would we have to do that?...no, we send them home...if they come back illegally, then we catch them, they go to court, they get convicted, and then they get executed....

what would really save a lot of time and money is if we had that wall i talked about...then they'd never get in to begin with...



better than your plan of genocide, better than the revolving door at the border.


i never advocated genocide....and no, it's not better than a revolving door, because it's just retarded..
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   


stop trying to make this into a "racist" thing....or is that the extent of your debate skills now?

a reply to: Daedalus
You Hit The Nail On The Head,,, That's It! You've Discovered his / her weakness, They've have nothing, so,,, in order to protect their Dear Leader and his Failed Policies, That's All they Have.
So, Be Proud and Say,,,,,

They know Obamas Wrong and Everyone who ever Voted For Him is Ashamed or Wish They Hadn't or at lest wished they'd listen to us!
Obama is not on the right side of America and Amnesty is not what Americas Want!
So as long as He / She is attacking you, Be Happy!!!

edit on 2-7-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Oh don't play that "Im not a racist" card with me. We ALL know what group of illegal immigrants you are talking about.

and we would have more right dropping off illegal immigrants into countries we don't like them to mass murder women and children.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Lol yeah I'm going to be ashamed because Obama didn't listen to nutjobs who are calling for the mass murder of people that cross the border illegally.

I know presidents and congress catch a lot of flack, but to be honest it kind of makes me breathe a sigh of relief that they are in power instead of the crazies we have here.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

spin, spin, spin....you must be mighty dizzy...

seriously though, aren't you over your bulls**t quota for the week?

there are illegals from all over the world, in this country right now....it's not my fault that mexicans cause the most problems..doesn't make me bigoted against mexicans, i'm just pointing out facts..

i think they should ALL be deported, no matter where they're from..

again, nobody's advocating the mass murder of women and children...godsdamnit, would you just give up the idiotic hyperbole already?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

crazy, yeah....

you wanna house, cloth, feed, and basically reward foreign invaders...

who's crazy again?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: muse7

crazy, yeah....

you wanna house, cloth, feed, and basically reward foreign invaders...

who's crazy again?


If the other alternative is killing them, then yes. I would prefer to house them, cloth them and feed them.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Uh you are advocating the mass murder of women and children.

You said it yourself. For the crime of wanting a better life you advocate that they be rounded up into camps, starved, then murdered.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Quote me saying i advocate the mass murder of women and children. quote me saying ANYTHING about camps, and starvation. and quote me saying i have anything against anyone wanting a better life.

do you actually read the crap you post, or do you just sort of attack the keyboard, and then hit send?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

so if, say, russia invaded us tomorrow...you'd rather give them everything, than fight them off?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

State to State extradition is handled at the state level. I know this because I have had to write out PC's for extradition holds for warrants confirmed out of state. The only time the feds get involved is if the 2 states in question start going at each other for whatever reason.

Specifically the extradition process ultimately ends with the issuance of a Governors Warrant. Essentially the legal tool to initiate extradition from one state to another. It requires the issuing agency to retrieve the individual from another state in a timely manner so as not to create a due process violation via being incarcerated for days weeks months or years waiting for the agency in question to come get the individual.

The ruling in question prevents the governor from overriding the courts when they review the extradition and a judge rules against the suspect and orders him to be sent back. While refusing to comply with a court action is one thing, the damage that can be done to equal protection is a disaster - IE Why did the governor refuse to send this suspect back to Iowa while this other suspect, who is charged with the same crime in California, was sent back. To relate that to this thread to keep it somewhat on topic the executive branch cannot usurp the authority of the judicial branch. An argument about fair treatment under the law if he were to send someone back is the jurisdiction of the courts as any due process violations would be.

Warrants issued and the extent they are willing to go for extradition is in fact a state matter, even when it is dealing with foreign countries. In those cases a state judge can issue a global arrest warrant. In those instances they are entered into the US system normally. for the global part it depends on agency and location, however the Feds can assist in the Interpol part. Extradition from one nation to another is also the responsibility of the agency wanting the individual. Either they can go get him or they can use US Marshals, again depending on situation and what not.

We have had cases where a nation has refused to extradite the individual because the State wanting him has the death penalty as an option. Absent the state giving assurances they will not seek that level charge, the nation holding the individual can refuse to extradite.

A suspect residency status does play a part in criminal prosecution - usually DWI/DUI, Domestic Assault and a few others. Criminal action taken in one state where the individual is found guilty, can translate over to his home state, depending on reciprocity.

DWI points for conviction and driver's license status can be applied against an out of state driver. Domestic assault charges and convictions in one state can prevent that individual from purchasing a fire arm in his home state etc. As an example, and it might have changed in the last few years, Florida does not recognize Missouri convictions for DWI / DWR. I have no idea why but that's another issue all together. A Missouri resident who loses their license in Missouri for a DWI/DUI conviction decides to up and move to Florida, who will issue them a drivers license as if they never were convicted of the DWI/DUI in Missouri (that whole reciprocity thing).

If that individual drivers through Missouri and is stopped and name ran, they will come back as valid out of Florida and revoked out of Missouri. Since Florida does not recognize our convictions in that area, Missouri does not recognize the individual as having a valid operator status in Missouri. IE they can be arrested and charged with driving while revoked / no operator status.

Anyways, to come back on topic the citizenship question, at least in my opinion, has been resolved. Everything up to this point in time has defined the difference between a natural born citizen and a non natural born citizen. Factor in the fact the US does not allow for dual citizenship and we have further evidence of the difference.

As for the comment by the Senator he needs to be educated on how the Constitution works, as does Obama. To the poster who made the comment about Obama being able to take action if Congress fails to act - That is nowhere in the Constitution, is an absolute violation of separation of powers, and is outright illegal under the constitution.

One branch of government cannot assume authority delegated to a different branch of government. That is spelled out in the checks and balances put in place. Its also one of the main reason the bulk of authority is vested with the US Congress - A deliberative body made up of the peoples representative (The House) and the States representatives to the Federal government (The Senate). Placing the bulk of authority with that body is to prevent the President from becoming a one man show, or to use the term of our founding fathers, a King, answerable to no one and whose authority is derived from God himself.



edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

Rewarding illegal immigrants with citizenship is akin to allowing people who rob banks to keep the money because they needed it.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

We already have, sorry to expose you. don't be mad.

Don't backpeddle now. Embrace who you are.

It's what you want, to murder women and children because they want a better life. Least have the courage of your convictions.

Don't blame me for your feelings.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

spin all you want, you're still full of s**t.

i never said any of that. and again, the fact that you view the world through such a distorted lens, makes me think you need some SERIOUS professional intervention, because you are VERY out of touch with reality.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

I was talking more about the dragging of the feet.

Our Govt was designed to talk small and slow steps.

Not Executive Action leaps. Or Court driven bounds.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Daedalus

So let's see, you want to execute men women and children of a certain race if they are caught here illegally and that's not genocide?

"Of a certain race"?

You are exhibiting your own racist bias there.

I guess you think only Hispanics come illegally to the U.S.

Nice stereotyping, bigot.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join